Appeal No. 2006-2842 Page 3
Application No. 09/773,054
invention without undue experimentation. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
At pages 3-5 of the answer, the examiner sets forth the reasoning for rejecting
claims 9, 21, and 34-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appellants’ response is to argue that the examiner’s rejection fails to address all
the features of the instant claims under rejection. In particular, appellants contend that
the module in Garcia is dedicated solely to a single printhead and can be removed and
replaced at the same time the printhead is removed (referring to Garcia, column 8, line
61, through column 9, line 7), and that Garcia lacks many of the features of the instant
claims for reasons set forth at pages 6-10 of the principal brief.
We have carefully considered the evidence before us, including, inter alia, the
disclosure of Garcia as well as the arguments of appellants and the examiner, and we
conclude therefrom that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 9, 21, and 34-44
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
All of the independent claims, except for claims 25 and 40, require that a second
service module has a “service function” that is different from the first service module.
While Garcia discloses the replacement of a first service module with a second service
module, wherein the service modules incorporate multiple functions in each single unit,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007